Pachter: Microsoft's first party is NOT weaker than Sony's

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -

GamingBolt spoke to Managing Director of Equity Research at Wedbush Securities Michael Pachter about the same, and barring a price cut and Kinect, would Microsoft be able to bounce back considering the weak first party content it had near the end of the Xbox 360′s run?

Pachter stated that, “Well, I mean, it’s funny when you say they have the weakest first party, because Uncharted, and inFamous, and The Last of Us, I would bet you if you took a single version of those three games, they don’t add up to Halo. And I would say if you take the next three games made by Sony’s first party studios, they won’t add up to Gears of War. So, I agree with you in the sense that the number of titles Sony has is more, but I think in terms of sales, it’s much closer, and might actually tilt in Microsoft’s favor.

“So, I don’t think you should make too much of an argument about how weak Microsoft’s first party content is, because most of Sony’s first party games that are successful are not gigantic sellers. I think that ultimately, for the Xbox One to be successful, the Kinect has to be decoupled from it, and I think that might be hard, because there’s a lot of stuff going on with the hardware where it’s all integrated, and it might not work.

SOURCE

A single Uncharted game sells ~6 million, which is about as much as an average Gears of War game; The Last of Us also sold 6 million. inFamous is the only low seller in the games Pachter mentioned. WTF?

#2 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6963 posts) -

Pachter doesn't really do anything but make projections. He doesn't rely on real world data to make those projections. Rather, he goes back and uses his previous projections, and his track record speaks for itself.

#3 Edited by Animal-Mother (26529 posts) -

I think Microsofts now first party is week ( though look what the hell is going on at naughty dog). Sales wise he's kinda write. MS created the massive blockbusters that just sold gangbusters.

#4 Edited by Animal-Mother (26529 posts) -

I think Microsofts now first party is week ( though look what the hell is going on at naughty dog). Sales wise he's kinda write. MS created the massive blockbusters that just sold gangbusters.

#5 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

lolPachter. Wasn't he saying that Titanfall would sell way more Xbones than PS4 a few months ago? That guy has a terrible track record.

#6 Posted by Suppaman100 (3766 posts) -

Lol Pachter

/thread

#7 Edited by RossRichard (2333 posts) -

Halo has went down a lot since they lost Bungie, and I don't look forward to playing thousands of prequels upon prequels for the new series of Gears of War.

That being said, MS first-party isn't weak. It's just not games I personally care for.

#8 Edited by Floppy_Jim (25584 posts) -

Gran Turismo and God of War, for example, sell nowhere near the numbers of juggernauts like Forza and Fable. Pachter is right once again.

#9 Edited by STEAMSBL0WSSAX (80 posts) -

It's weaker than the original xbox days, the xbox brand is total shit now.

#10 Edited by Heil68 (43414 posts) -

He must be thinking back prior to 2009.

#11 Posted by inb4uall (5339 posts) -

In terms of sales maybe. Not in terms of quality and variety.

#12 Edited by RR360DD (11598 posts) -

He's right.

People put sony on a pedestal when they really really don't deserve it at all. The only notable talent they have left is Naughty God, and even they are going down the toilet now.

Theyve lost / closed a ton of studios, and what they have left - Sucker Punch, evolution, GuerilLOL, Sony japan are all mediocre and Santa Monica hit and miss.

If Sony didn't have such a huge army of dick riding cows their games would get little to no hype at all because they're just not interesting.

#13 Posted by inb4uall (5339 posts) -

@RR360DD said:

He's right.

People put sony on a pedestal when they really really don't deserve it at all. The only notable talent they have left is Naughty God, and even they are going down the toilet now.

Theyve lost / closed a ton of studios, and what they have left - Sucker Punch, evolution, GuerilLOL, Sony japan are all mediocre and Santa Monica hit and miss.

If Sony didn't have such a huge army of dick riding cows their games would get little to no hype at all because they're just not interesting.

trooooooooooooooooololololololololol

#14 Edited by shawn30 (4364 posts) -
#15 Edited by misterpmedia (3363 posts) -

@RR360DD said:

He's right.

People put sony on a pedestal when they really really don't deserve it at all. The only notable talent they have left is Naughty God, and even they are going down the toilet now.

Theyve lost / closed a ton of studios, and what they have left - Sucker Punch, evolution, GuerilLOL, Sony japan are all mediocre and Santa Monica hit and miss.

If Sony didn't have such a huge army of dick riding cows their games would get little to no hype at all because they're just not interesting.

#16 Posted by Desmonic (13382 posts) -

Patcher at it again lol

#17 Edited by bforrester420 (1334 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

Pachter doesn't really do anything but make projections. He doesn't rely on real world data to make those projections. Rather, he goes back and uses his previous projections, and his track record speaks for itself.

Wedbrush doesn't pay their analysts to pull projections out of their asses. Pachter may be wrong a good deal of the time, but to think there isn't any market research that goes behind his predictions is foolish.

Bold: That's specifically what securities analysts do.

Pachter conveniently left out two of Sony's biggest franchises. God of War and, say what you want it still moves units, Gran Turismo.

#18 Edited by lglz1337 (3127 posts) -

lol @ pachter ignoring god of war and GT

pachter trying to save a dead console it's obvious

and GT is not a gigantic seller"giggles" GT 3 a-spec sold more than every halo game

gt5 sold more than galo 4

#19 Edited by TrappedInABox91 (520 posts) -

Its a close call, but I still think Sony is better. Meanwhile,Nintendo has a better first party than the both of them.

Pachter is quite the moron anyway. No one should ever take him seriously.

#20 Posted by highking_kallor (512 posts) -

@RR360DD said:

He's right.

People put sony on a pedestal when they really really don't deserve it at all. The only notable talent they have left is Naughty God, and even they are going down the toilet now.

Theyve lost / closed a ton of studios, and what they have left - Sucker Punch, evolution, GuerilLOL, Sony japan are all mediocre and Santa Monica hit and miss.

If Sony didn't have such a huge army of dick riding cows their games would get little to no hype at all because they're just not interesting.

Do you need a tissue?

#21 Edited by StormyJoe (4867 posts) -

GamingBolt spoke to Managing Director of Equity Research at Wedbush Securities Michael Pachter about the same, and barring a price cut and Kinect, would Microsoft be able to bounce back considering the weak first party content it had near the end of the Xbox 360′s run?

Pachter stated that, “Well, I mean, it’s funny when you say they have the weakest first party, because Uncharted, and inFamous, and The Last of Us, I would bet you if you took a single version of those three games, they don’t add up to Halo. And I would say if you take the next three games made by Sony’s first party studios, they won’t add up to Gears of War. So, I agree with you in the sense that the number of titles Sony has is more, but I think in terms of sales, it’s much closer, and might actually tilt in Microsoft’s favor.

“So, I don’t think you should make too much of an argument about how weak Microsoft’s first party content is, because most of Sony’s first party games that are successful are not gigantic sellers. I think that ultimately, for the Xbox One to be successful, the Kinect has to be decoupled from it, and I think that might be hard, because there’s a lot of stuff going on with the hardware where it’s all integrated, and it might not work.

SOURCE

A single Uncharted game sells ~6 million, which is about as much as an average Gears of War game; The Last of Us also sold 6 million. inFamous is the only low seller in the games Pachter mentioned. WTF?

Interesting. I will say that, love it or hate it, the Halo series is a lot more known that TLOU, Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone, etc.

I am not talking about just game sales - a lot of non-gamers know about Halo, but they probably don't "know" about TLOU.

#22 Edited by GamingGod999 (2956 posts) -

#23 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16294 posts) -
#24 Edited by DerekLoffin (8753 posts) -

It's kinda odd to mention gears of war. While they own the rights to the IP now, it was a Epic (not MS) that made it what it is, and the latest in the series tanked when it switched hands. Halo is really the only franchise they have that sells really well and like already mentioned, if you compare tops to tops, it loses to GT by quite a lot (although both franchises are showing issues in their latest installments).

#25 Edited by StormyJoe (4867 posts) -

It's kinda odd to mention gears of war. While they own the rights to the IP now, it was a Epic (not MS) that made it what it is, and the latest in the series tanked when it switched hands. Halo is really the only franchise they have that sells really well and like already mentioned, if you compare tops to tops, it loses to GT by quite a lot (although both franchises are showing issues in their latest installments).

"tops to tops"? Has GT ever "beaten" Forza? I do not know for sure, but I seem to remember reading that it never has.

#26 Posted by DerekLoffin (8753 posts) -

@DerekLoffin said:

It's kinda odd to mention gears of war. While they own the rights to the IP now, it was a Epic (not MS) that made it what it is, and the latest in the series tanked when it switched hands. Halo is really the only franchise they have that sells really well and like already mentioned, if you compare tops to tops, it loses to GT by quite a lot (although both franchises are showing issues in their latest installments).

"tops to tops"? Has GT ever "beaten" Forza? I do not know for sure, but I seem to remember reading that it never has.

If you're talking sales, which is what we're talking, Forza has yet to ever beat GT.

#27 Posted by Desmonic (13382 posts) -

@StormyJoe:

That's completely beside the issue at hand though. Pachter tries to claim MS's 1st party isn't weak and in fact stronger than Sony's solely due to the sales of two franchises: Halo and Gears.

(“So, I don’t think you should make too much of an argument about how weak Microsoft’s first party content is, because most of Sony’s first party games that are successful are not gigantic sellers." <- At least, that's what this seems to imply)

Gears sold (per game) on average with what UC, TLOU and GoW have sold (again, per game). Halo does sell alot, but it pulls similar numbers to GT. So on that basis of his argument (that sales means better) he once again f*cks himself. At best he could try to claim, that sales wise, MS's first party is similar to Sony's (which is somewhat true, even when we compare the smaller franchises).

However if one were to analyse the critical review of these franchises things change completely (and not in MS's favour).

All in all, this is another "lolPachter" thread. And rightfully so.

lolPachter.

#28 Edited by FoxbatAlpha (6133 posts) -

Microsoft equal or better than Sony in a particular area? That's easy.

#29 Posted by jg4xchamp (47286 posts) -

GamingBolt spoke to Managing Director of Equity Research at Wedbush Securities Michael Pachter about the same, and barring a price cut and Kinect, would Microsoft be able to bounce back considering the weak first party content it had near the end of the Xbox 360′s run?

Pachter stated that, “Well, I mean, it’s funny when you say they have the weakest first party, because Uncharted, and inFamous, and The Last of Us, I would bet you if you took a single version of those three games, they don’t add up to Halo. And I would say if you take the next three games made by Sony’s first party studios, they won’t add up to Gears of War. So, I agree with you in the sense that the number of titles Sony has is more, but I think in terms of sales, it’s much closer, and might actually tilt in Microsoft’s favor.

“So, I don’t think you should make too much of an argument about how weak Microsoft’s first party content is, because most of Sony’s first party games that are successful are not gigantic sellers. I think that ultimately, for the Xbox One to be successful, the Kinect has to be decoupled from it, and I think that might be hard, because there’s a lot of stuff going on with the hardware where it’s all integrated, and it might not work.

SOURCE

A single Uncharted game sells ~6 million, which is about as much as an average Gears of War game; The Last of Us also sold 6 million. inFamous is the only low seller in the games Pachter mentioned. WTF?

He compared those 3 games to Halo, they don't stack up to Halo's sales, hence correct statement.

The next 3 games made by Sony First Party=next 3 new ips, which highly likely(but purely conjecture right now) do not stack up against a Gears in sales.

From a sales standpoint, he's correct.

#30 Posted by DerekLoffin (8753 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

GamingBolt spoke to Managing Director of Equity Research at Wedbush Securities Michael Pachter about the same, and barring a price cut and Kinect, would Microsoft be able to bounce back considering the weak first party content it had near the end of the Xbox 360′s run?

Pachter stated that, “Well, I mean, it’s funny when you say they have the weakest first party, because Uncharted, and inFamous, and The Last of Us, I would bet you if you took a single version of those three games, they don’t add up to Halo. And I would say if you take the next three games made by Sony’s first party studios, they won’t add up to Gears of War. So, I agree with you in the sense that the number of titles Sony has is more, but I think in terms of sales, it’s much closer, and might actually tilt in Microsoft’s favor.

“So, I don’t think you should make too much of an argument about how weak Microsoft’s first party content is, because most of Sony’s first party games that are successful are not gigantic sellers. I think that ultimately, for the Xbox One to be successful, the Kinect has to be decoupled from it, and I think that might be hard, because there’s a lot of stuff going on with the hardware where it’s all integrated, and it might not work.

SOURCE

A single Uncharted game sells ~6 million, which is about as much as an average Gears of War game; The Last of Us also sold 6 million. inFamous is the only low seller in the games Pachter mentioned. WTF?

He compared those 3 games to Halo, they don't stack up to Halo's sales, hence correct statement.

The next 3 games made by Sony First Party=next 3 new ips, which highly likely(but purely conjecture right now) do not stack up against a Gears in sales.

From a sales standpoint, he's correct.

Well, that depends what you are comparing. He says 'they don't add up to Halo' except even 1 is nearly enough and together they are more than enough to overcome even the best halo sales (and a single title can overcome the weakest sales in the Halo franchise). Now if he meant to compare 1 : 1 shouldn't have used "add" in there since that strongly implies a cumulative value. If he meant to compare franchise to franchise, he shouldn't have restricted it to a single version as that is seriously unfair and meaningless comparison. And, it is also an odd comparison, comparing the mid tier sales games from Sony to MS highest tier sales game.

#31 Posted by cainetao11 (16839 posts) -

@DerekLoffin: true. But as you said, if we're talking sales, then MS did make gears what it is. They promoted and published it.

#32 Edited by StormyJoe (4867 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

@StormyJoe:

That's completely beside the issue at hand though. Pachter tries to claim MS's 1st party isn't weak and in fact stronger than Sony's solely due to the sales of two franchises: Halo and Gears.

(“So, I don’t think you should make too much of an argument about how weak Microsoft’s first party content is, because most of Sony’s first party games that are successful are not gigantic sellers." <- At least, that's what this seems to imply)

Gears sold (per game) on average with what UC, TLOU and GoW have sold (again, per game). Halo does sell alot, but it pulls similar numbers to GT. So on that basis of his argument (that sales means better) he once again f*cks himself. At best he could try to claim, that sales wise, MS's first party is similar to Sony's (which is somewhat true, even when we compare the smaller franchises).

However if one were to analyse the critical review of these franchises things change completely (and not in MS's favour).

All in all, this is another "lolPachter" thread. And rightfully so.

lolPachter.

Yeah, that's a good point. I think Sony's 1st party, as a whole, is better than MS's at the moment.

#33 Posted by DerekLoffin (8753 posts) -

@DerekLoffin: true. But as you said, if we're talking sales, then MS did make gears what it is. They promoted and published it.

Promotion and publishing isn't the same as making it what it is. It is part of it, but the most important part, the actual programming of the game, they didn't do. It is just odd to use it in an example of strong 1st party when it wasn't 1st party for it's entire lifespan, and as soon as it moved to a different dev it tanked (despite MS promoting and publishing), and only now does MS own the IP so it really hasn't been 1st party all this time.

#34 Edited by StormyJoe (4867 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@DerekLoffin said:

It's kinda odd to mention gears of war. While they own the rights to the IP now, it was a Epic (not MS) that made it what it is, and the latest in the series tanked when it switched hands. Halo is really the only franchise they have that sells really well and like already mentioned, if you compare tops to tops, it loses to GT by quite a lot (although both franchises are showing issues in their latest installments).

"tops to tops"? Has GT ever "beaten" Forza? I do not know for sure, but I seem to remember reading that it never has.

If you're talking sales, which is what we're talking, Forza has yet to ever beat GT.

Gotcha. You are probably right.

#35 Edited by tymeservesfate (1566 posts) -

i said before that Sony doesn't have the best 1st party studios...that they only have Naughty Dog...well, HAD Naughty Dog.

i say had because after all of Naughty Dog's top talent recently leaving the studio it must be a shell of its former self.

#36 Posted by sam890 (1071 posts) -

Damage control zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

#37 Edited by Solid_Max13 (3527 posts) -

Patcher has always seemed to be very anti Sony, even when Sony had a great press conference and MS did the whole kinect garbage, I remember on GT he gave it like an A+ lol while the rest were like meh B's and C's

#38 Posted by super600 (30277 posts) -

i said before that Sony doesn't have the best 1st party studios...that they only have Naughty Dog...well, HAD Naughty Dog.

i say had because after all of Naughty Dog's top talent leaving recently the studio must be a shell of its former self.

Naughty dog is nowhere near a shell of there former selves. Employees leave sometimes from the company. The recent departures are a bit worrying anyway.

#39 Posted by lbjkurono23 (12544 posts) -

Pacher, everything adds up if you don't think about it.

#40 Edited by delta3074 (17877 posts) -

Microsoft must have a weak first party, because Pachter says it doesn't,lol

#41 Edited by cainetao11 (16839 posts) -

@DerekLoffin: I differ in opinion. We are talking sales, as you said, so the ad campaign must be taken into consideration. That "other" dev you mentioned was owned by epic also. And 7.5 is tanking? Game may not have been great but it wasn't knack/ryse

#42 Edited by kunal_anand50 (77 posts) -

Sales? Seriously? I would rather have a variety of exclusives in different genres that Sony provides instead of a 10 million selling rehashed Halo every second year.

#43 Posted by DerekLoffin (8753 posts) -

@DerekLoffin: I differ in opinion. We are talking sales, as you said, so the ad campaign must be taken into consideration. That "other" dev you mentioned was owned by epic also. And 7.5 is tanking? Game may not have been great but it wasn't knack/ryse

Sales and review wise it tanked. It hasn't even broken 2 mil (in fact, for whatever vgchartz is worth, it isn't even over 1.5 mil) while Gears 3 did 6 million. That's a huge drop.

#44 Edited by Cloud_imperium (2478 posts) -

Stopped reading after "Pachter" . Don't care what he thinks , even if it turns out to be true .

This guys is a joke , his one of the biggest jokes was that PS4 will run games at 240 frames per second .

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2013/02/03/pachter-reckons-ps4-can-render-games-at-240-fps/

#45 Posted by cainetao11 (16839 posts) -

@DerekLoffin: well that's all subjective to your rating system. Game is 79 on metacritic, hardly tanked, imo. Huge drop in sales but game sold over 1 million so again hardly a tank imo. All subjective

#46 Edited by SolidTy (42412 posts) -

His argument is based on sales...but he doesn't mention Gran Turismo, LBP, or God of War (GT especially). In fact, Uncharted is quite successful, but all of this is why I don't argue sales. I can't play sales! I bought all the machines to play great games. Besides, it's an off-the-cuff statement, it's not even based on any analysis. Grain of salt and not worth our time discussing.

I would rather have more games to play than acknowledge the Halo game I'm playing sold more because one company spends more on marketing and making less games internally than the other. Knowing Halo sold a lot while I'm playing it doesn't improve my Halo experience at all.

I'm all about having more games for gamers. Here's one example.Tearaway is a fantastic game, but I don't believe it's selling well. I guess it sucks if I care about sales, but I played it and it's great. I'm all about great experiences and more games for gamers to play. I know, I own all the machines and play them and I can tell when companies are slacking off in producing games for the box I bought.

One company would cancel a game like Tearaway and use that budget for marketing the hell out of a game. I would rather that game exists than know more commercials, web adverts, and magazine ads are promoting the game I bought.

In one scenario I get Two games...in the other scenario I get one game with the knowledge that the game was promoted and sold more. That information is useless to me, a gamer looking to buy fantastic games.

In Pachter's world, we get less Wonderful 101s, Tearaways, ICOs, Gravity Rush, Demon's Souls, Shadow of the Colossus, Bayonetta's, Infamous', and various other neat and fantastic retail games. Those classics don't exist anymore, imagine instead those games canceled budgets went into marketing budgets for more Call of Duty's, Halos, GeoWs, and Battlefields.

Sure, a business man and Teenage/20-something armchair CEO would argue for business and sales and marketing, but I'm not relating to any of that. I'm a gamer who wants to see more GREAT games on the shelf for me to buy. YES, every great games deserves great sales, but that's not a reality we live in. I also understand companies need to sustain themselves, again, THAT"S NOT MY POINT. My point is one company is bending over backwards to give me variety and games developed by them and another company does not. In fact, I would argue 2 out of 3 console companies are giving me variety and games in a much larger volume than the 3rd company. It's noticed when you actually buy the games and play them.

#47 Posted by DerekLoffin (8753 posts) -

@DerekLoffin: well that's all subjective to your rating system. Game is 79 on metacritic, hardly tanked, imo. Huge drop in sales but game sold over 1 million so again hardly a tank imo. All subjective

Considering he is comparing it to the next 3, which would include the likes of Killzone (which sold more than that by itself), his own standard doesn't work. This whole comparison is just so chalked full of huge flaws as to be nonsensical.

#48 Posted by jg4xchamp (47286 posts) -

Well, that depends what you are comparing. He says 'they don't add up to Halo' except even 1 is nearly enough and together they are more than enough to overcome even the best halo sales (and a single title can overcome the weakest sales in the Halo franchise). Now if he meant to compare 1 : 1 shouldn't have used "add" in there since that strongly implies a cumulative value. If he meant to compare franchise to franchise, he shouldn't have restricted it to a single version as that is seriously unfair and meaningless comparison. And, it is also an odd comparison, comparing the mid tier sales games from Sony to MS highest tier sales game.

I read it as individually.

#49 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150289 posts) -

His opinion is important because....?

#50 Posted by charizard1605 (55964 posts) -

His opinion is important because....?

I don't know, ask the entire gaming industry, I guess